The Upanishads pg 3

I found this reading to be kind of confusing. Some parts made a lot of sense and were beautiful while I found other parts to be weird. Look at the first sentence for example. “That is perfect. This is perfect. Perfect comes from perfect. Take perfect from perfect, the remainder is perfect.” What does this mean?! I try to come up with things that this may be actually saying but ultimately cannot really think of anything. Also (whatever the true meaning of this writing) it does not seem like it could benefit anyone’s life. Maybe for someone in a different culture at a different time could much better benefit from it and gain more wisdom than I can from reading it.
I found some parts of this writing to be very beautiful and true in my own understanding of them. There are many universal principles here that for the most part people except. For example, “Claim nothing; enjoy, do not covet his [God] property,” is a common belief that most religions seem to have. I personally find this to be something that people should live by even though none of us could ever do it perfectly. Many religions teach that we should not be selfish and seek after worldly things for they could never satisfy us fully. The less someone seems to care about earthly possessions the more fulfilled someone seems to be. Whenever I think about whether or not something like money can make us happy I just look at the lives of many celebrities. Sometimes it seems like the richer and more successful someone is, the more likely they are to be depressed and maybe even suicidal. It is probably true that for most people the more they want of something, the less satisfied they are with it. Take money for example. If someone becomes consumed with getting more and more money, the less satisfied they are with the money they have. Someone who makes let say $30,000 a year could be more content and happy than a millionaire who becomes obsessed with money and how much they are making. Now I am not saying that I would rather have $30,000 than a million dollars. Obviously I would take the million in a second! I just think that seeking after worldly things could never fully satisfy any of us (or at least not long term).

Padmasambhava

The Tibetan Book of the Dead talks about death as if there is nothing to fear. They make it sound like an opportunity to become more enlightened and be at peace. The book seems as though it would be a great comfort to someone who is dying. To me death does not seem so glorious or a positive experience to improve oneself or understanding. Honestly death makes me afraid. Maybe I am more scared of how I will die. It would be one thing if I knew I would be old and feel no pain in my death. It is a scary thought to think that any one of us could die tomorrow. It is especially scary to think of all the painful ways it could happen. Most of us try to not think about it. I know that I try not to most of the time! I guess that it makes sense to try and make the most of every situation, no matter how bad it my be. The Tibetan Book of the Dead said that when death comes we should adopt this attitude: 'I will adopt only the attitude of an enlightened state of mind, friendliness and compassion, and attain perfect enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings as limitless as space.' The book carries a different attitude about death than I do. Maybe there is more positive things in death than I see. I believe that there is heaven and hell after death, but that does not erase my fears. I think that The Tibetan Book of the Dead is for both those that are close to death and those that will continue living. I can see how death can provide people with a last opportunity to create peace among their relationships and themselves. I like how this reading starts out with, "Even a deathbed can be a place of rebirth." I generally do not associate death with peace like that book does.

Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha (1752-1830) pg 158

"You say that you are right and that we are lost. How do you know that this is true?" Sa-G0-Ye-Wat-Ha said this in his speech to a Christian missionary that came to his people. When dealing with religion and people trying to convert other people, this is a common question people ask. Most are turned off to certain religions or religion all together when someone confidently tells that they are wrong and need to believe "this" or "that." Many times a person's religion is more than just what they believe. It can also be a deeply rich part of their culture and everyday lives that makes them who they are. For them to change religion would in a sense be them losing their whole identity.

A great example comes to mind from the book 'Brukcho.' It is a true story that talks about Christian missionaries that were working in a tribal community in South America. Some tribes had been (according to the missionaries) "fully converted." These tribes also displayed many American customs. They dressed like the missionaries, went to church in square buildings, and sang the usual songs you would hear in many of the Christian churches in America. They acted just like the missionaries. The other natives saw this and wanted nothing to do with the religion the missionaries were bringing to them because they would lose their own customs and identity. They did not want to dress like the missionaries. In the story there was one missionary that was separate from the others. He did not try to change the natives culture and identities. Rather he just spoke what he believed to be absolute truth and did his best to apply it in a way that would fit into their culture and already spiritual beliefs. Some of the natives had said that they had become closer to God through his teachings and were glad that they did not have to change their customs. Their "worship services" were entirely different than that of any American church.

Now there is always the question as to whether there is absolute truth or not. If there is absolute truth (for example say one God), then this truth is for every person on earth and they can therefore receive this truth in a way that fits their own culture. Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha said, "Since he [the Great Spirit] has made so great a difference between us in other things, why shouldn't we conclude that he has given us a different religion, according to our understanding? The Great Spirit does right. He knows what is best for his children." Both the missionary and Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha could of actually believed the same truth when you look past the cultural customs that people have associated with their religion. The missionary felt that if they did not worship God like he did, then they were not saved. It is one thing to try to convert someone to Christianity. It is great when people share what they believe when they feel they have discovered the truth that is for everyone. The missionary went about it in a wrong way by trying to convert them to "American Christianity."

Chief Seattle (1786-1866) pg 173

Chief Seattle's speech was both convicting and beautiful. I found the references to the land where Chief Seattle and his people were located to be really interesting. I realize that I do not view the earth in the same way he does. I probably have a more similar view to that of Governor Stevens. Chief Seattle sees the world as sacred, beautiful, and very close to his heart. In the soil he sees the blood of his brothers and his people's history. The earth is a holy thing to be cherished and respected. It gives his people life and sustains them. To me the earth is a beautiful thing but I do not see myself relating closely to it. I do not have any deep meaningful attachments linked to the earth like Chief Seattle.

Governor Stevens saw the land with a much different perspective than Chief Seattle. It is in some ways strange how two people can look at the same thing and view it completely differently and feel different things about it. Chief Seattle saw that being removed from the land would result in the end of his people. He was aware that the end of his people was on its way and that it was a dark time. He also knew that the land would not be taken care of with the same respect and sustainability that his people provided it. Governor Stevens seemingly saw the land as a gain and a place to build and conquer.

History proves that the more powerful prevails and conquers. Those that are weaker unfortunately do not have much hope. Chief Seattle and his people (from what it sounds like) were greatly outnumbered and ultimately overpowered. In his speech it seemed like he had a choice and could accept or reject Governor Stevens offer. At the same time it is likely that if Chief Seattle did not choose to accept the offer, he would then be forced to.